 |
|
|
|||||
Last month, a food research organization called Nectar released an expansive set of findings from taste tests that rated plant-based meat alternatives alongside actual meat. One bit of information stood out: In terms of taste, 54% of people on average found 20 vegan products (such as burgers, nuggets, and sausages) from 13 brands (including Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and Gardein) to taste as good as or better than analogous conventional meat products. This should probably be good news for those of us who are concerned about the environment, public health, and animal welfare. But the flipside of this discovery is that even though plant-based meat is starting to taste just as good as (and in some cases better than) animal meat, most people arent changing their purchasing habits accordingly. If taste is king, it doesnt deserve the crownand ignoring this reality will doom alt protein to irrelevance. For many decades now, people in a whole array of fields have been on a mad mission to figure out how to get people to eat less meat. It has long been clear that education alone about the problems with factory farming isn’t enough to get people to change their behavior. Certainly shaming people, demanding total lifestyle overhaul, and expecting perfection are tactics that dont workthats why I cofounded the Reducetarian Foundation, because encouraging incremental change actually does work. But even that has its limits. Indeed, I have always believed that a more pragmatic approachoffering people better options in the marketplaceis ultimately one of the most effective ways to drive change. Specifically, I figured that the pillars of price, convenience, and especially taste were a sort of holy grail for the alt-meat industry. We can’t reasonably expect people to change their eating habits unless and until the more ethical, environmentally friendly, and healthy option is also the more affordable, convenient, and delicious choice. Interestingly, weve reached a point where, at least in the case of some products, plant-based meat is indeed as tasty as (or, to some people, even tastier than) real meat. Prices are nearing parity (though aren’t quite there yet) and in some cases are even cheaper than animal meat. And plant-based meat is easier than ever to find, with major brands like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat stocked in mainstream supermarkets and fast food chains like Burger King and Starbucks offering alt-meat options. Plant-based meat may not have totally surpassed regular meat in the price-taste-convenience (PTC) trifecta, but compelling data shows that were closer than ever. And yet, weve yet to see a real revolution in consumer habits. Plant-based meat still only makes up about 1% of total retail meat sales. Were still a nation of meat eaters, eating more than 225 pounds of meat per year (and climbing), making us one the biggest meat-eating nations in the world. Suffice it to say, the scales aren’t tippingat least not to the degree wed expect to see if the so-called PTC hypothesis were wholly true. It turns out that in 2023, researcher Jacob Peacock, of the think tank Rethink Priorities, actually put the PTC hypothesis to the test, reviewing existing research on plant-based meat and consumer behavior. His conclusion? PTC doesnt explain peoples choices. At least, not as comprehensively as some of us believed it would. Peacock explains some major problems with collecting good data on consumer choiceslike not enough real-world research, unreliable self-reports, and missing control groups. He also reviews many studies showing that people still prefer animal meat over plant-based meat, even when price and convenience arent issues and they say the taste is similar. Even in hypothetical situations, people tend to report that theyd still prefer real meal to alt-meat, regardless if it’s indistinguishable in terms of price, taste, and convenience. One of Peacocks conclusions is that we’ve been underestimating the importance of social and psychological factors. Diet, especially when it comes to meat consumption, is highly politicized. Conservative-leaning people are likely to be dissuaded by environmentally friendly messaging, and several Republican politicians have proposed legislation to keep the alt-meat industry out of their states. Meat is also gendered, being socially linked to masculinity. These ideas may be divorced from rationality, but people dont always behave rationallyemotional, social, and psychological forces are at play, too. It comes as a bit of a blow to think that even if someone in the culinary or food tech spaces creates the most delicious burger the world has ever seen, and at an affordable price, most people will still go for regular old beef. One caveat to all this is that the Nectar study found there’s still room for improvement in taste even among the top performing products. For example, it reported that among those who preferred the plant-based products, they prefered them less strongly than those who preferred animal meat. In other words, the animal meat attracted more die-hard fans. This partially explains why some plant-based brands won a Tasty Award, in the language of Nectar, but not a Parity or Superiority Award, which is reserved for products that have an equal or much greater chance of being preferred. Still, the limitations of taste are clear. Given more than half of participants rated 20 plant-based meat products the same or better than animal-based meat, wed expect plant-based meat sales to be a lot higher if taste primarily explained consumer behavior. As frustrating as it may be to champions of alt-meat, this is information we can use. Price, taste, and convenience are certainly factors in consumer choice (if smaller factors than we previously believed), and it can only help the sectorand thus, make a real difference in changing the way people eatto make plant-based meat as tasty and cheap as possible. All of the time and resources going toward that have, likely, not been wasted. But now, its clear we need to diversify our attention. We need researchers to delve into the more amorphous factors that drive peoples food choices, and we need marketers and educators to include them in their messaging. When someone chooses meat over plant-based alternatives, even when they acknowledge that the plant-based option tastes just as good, we need to find out why. We need to start gathering information so we can make a real effort to combat the psychological and social factors keeping people from switching to alternative meats. What is it thats actually stopping them, and how can we remove or lessen those obstacles? Answers to these questions wont come easy, but nothing worthwhile ever does.
Category:
E-Commerce
Every day, people are constantly learning and forming new memories. When you pick up a new hobby, try a recipe a friend recommended, or read the latest world news, your brain stores many of these memories for years or decades. But how does your brain achieve this incredible feat? In our newly published research in the journal Science, we have identified some of the rules the brain uses to learn. Learning in the brain The human brain is made up of billions of nerve cells. These neurons conduct electrical pulses that carry information, much like how computers use binary code to carry data. These electrical pulses are communicated with other neurons through connections between them called synapses. Individual neurons have branching extensions known as dendrites that can receive thousands of electrical inputs from other cells. Dendrites transmit these inputs to the main body of the neuron, where it then integrates all these signals to generate its own electrical pulses. It is the collective activity of these electrical pulses across specific groups of neurons that form the representations of different information and experiences within the brain. For decades, neuroscientists have thought that the brain learns by changing how neurons are connected to one another. As new information and experiences alter how neurons communicate with each other and change their collective activity patterns, some synaptic connections are made stronger while others are made weaker. This process of synaptic plasticity is what produces representations of new information and experiences within your brain. In order for your brain to produce the correct representations during learning, however, the right synaptic connections must undergo the right changes at the right time. The rules that your brain uses to select which synapses to change during learningwhat neuroscientists call the credit assignment problemhave remained largely unclear. Defining the rules We decided to monitor the activity of individual synaptic connections within the brain during learning to see whether we could identify activity patterns that determine which connections would get stronger or weaker. To do this, we genetically encoded biosensors in the neurons of mice that would light up in response to synaptic and neural activity. We monitored this activity in real time as the mice learned a task that involved pressing a lever to a certain position after a sound cue in order to receive water. We were surprised to find that the synapses on a neuron dont all follow the same rule. For example, scientists have often thought that neurons follow what are called Hebbian rules, where neurons that consistently fire together, wire together. Instead, we saw that synapses on different locations of dendrites of the same neuron followed different rules to determine whether connections got stronger or weaker. Some synapses adhered to the traditional Hebbian rule where neurons that consistently fire together strengthen their connections. Other synapses did something different and completely independent of the neurons activity. Our findings suggest that neurons, by simultaneously using two different sets of rules for learning across different groups of synapses, rather than a single uniform rule, can more precisely tune the different types of inputs they receive to appropriately represent new information in the brain. In other words, by following different rules in the process of learning, neurons can multitask and perform multiple functions in parallel. Future applications This discovery provides a clearer understanding of how the connections between neurons change during learning. Given that most brain disorders, including degenerative and psychiatric conditions, involve some form of malfunctioning synapses, this has potentially important implications for human health and society. For example, depression may develop from an excessive weakening of the synaptic connections within certain areas of the brain that make it harder to experience pleasure. By understanding how synaptic plasticity normally operates, scientists may be able to better understand what goes wrong in depression and then develop therapies to more effectively treat it. These findings may also have implications for artificial intelligence. The artificial neural networks underlying AI have largely been inspired by how the brain works. However, the learning rules researchers use to update the connections within the networks and train the models are usually uniform and also not biologically plausible. Our research may provide insights into how to develop more biologically realistic AI models that are more efficient, have better performance, or both. There is still a long way to go before we can use this information to develop new therapies for human brain disorders. While we found that synaptic connections on different groups of dendrites use different learning rules, we dont know exactly why or how. In addition, while the ability of neurons to simultaneously use multiple learning methods increases their capacity to encode information, what other properties this may give them isnt yet clear. Future research will hopefully answer these questions and further our understanding of how the brain learns. William Wright is a postdoctoral scholar in neurobiology at the University of California, San Diego. Takaki Komiyama is a professor of neurobiology at the University of California, San Diego. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Just a few months into Donald Trumps second term, are the manosphere influencers who championed him already starting to backpedal? In a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, host Joe Rogan raised concerns about the presidents decision to send undocumented immigrants directly to El Salvadors mega-prisonswithout trial, lawyers, or, as critics argue, any semblance of due process. “What if you are an enemy of, lets not say any current president. Lets pretend we got a new president, totally new guy in 2028, and this is a common practice now of just rounding up gang members with no due process and shipping them to El Salvador, youre a gang member. No, Im not. Prove it. What? I got to go to court. No. No due process,” said Rogan. We gotta be careful we dont become monsters, while fighting monsters. For those who had been sounding the alarm during Trumps campaign, it was a painful watch. Watching Joe Rogan figure this shit out in real time is painful, one commenter wrote. That ol Even a broken clock is right twice a day idiom comes to mind, another added. As one Reddit comment pointed out, Why does he need to use a hypothetical president to make this point? This entire commentary describes the current administration. View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler) This election cycle, Trump owes at least part of his victory to Rogan and other manosphere influencers who endorsed him. After hosting the now-president on The Joe Rogan Experiencein what became one of the most-watched podcast episodes of all time, with 58 million views at the time of writingRogan followed up with a full-throated endorsement just one day before the 2024 election. Are we now seeing the first cracks appear? Rogan isnt the only vocal Trump supporter expressing unease in recent weeks. Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy, who publicly backed Trump during the campaign, voiced frustration after the presidents rollout of sweeping tariffs sent markets into a nosedive. Portnoy claimed he lost $7 million in the aftermath. So, Trump rolls out the tariffs, right? Portnoy said in a livestream posted April 7. This is a decision that one guy made that crashed the whole stock market. Thats why were calling it Orange Monday and not Black Monday. Just days earlier, Portnoy had reaffirmed his support for Trump. I voted for Trump, I think hes a smart guy, he said in a clip. I also think hes playing a high-stakes game here. Im gonna roll with him for a couple days, a couple weeks, see how this pans out. By Monday, he said his estimated losses had climbed to $20 million.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||